
A.W.35

Scimitar


First flight
1933
In service
1933
info
Total in database
Crashed
0
info
Displays
info
Land Leased





Variant | First Flight | Max Speed | Max Range | Max Weght | Max Celling: | Wing Span | length | height |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A.W.35 (Proposed alternative engine variant) | 225 | 520 | ~7,500 | 24,000 | 37.5 | 26.5 | 11.5 | |
A.W.35 (Norwegian service) | 01/01/1936 | 202 | 495 | ~7,200 | 22,000 | 37.5 | 26.5 | 11.5 |
A.W.35 (Prototype) | 01/01/1936 | 205 | 510 | ~7,000 | 23,000 | 37.5 | 26.5 | 11.5 |
Design and Development
During the mid-1930s, Armstrong Whitworth explored multiple options to improve the performance of the A.W.35 Scimitar, whose original Bristol Mercury VI radial engine left the aircraft underpowered relative to contemporaries like the Hawker Hurricane and Messerschmitt Bf 109. The company proposed an alternative powerplant variant to attract additional export customers and address complaints from Norway regarding limited speed, climb, and operational ceiling. This variant remained conceptual and never progressed beyond detailed engineering drawings.
Proposed Powerplant and Enhancements
The alternative variant was designed around either:
Bristol Pegasus IX radial engine (~890 hp), which promised a significant increase in speed and climb rate, or
Rolls-Royce Kestrel V-12 inline engine (~745–695 hp depending on configuration) to improve aerodynamic efficiency and reduce frontal drag.
Enhancements envisioned with the alternative engine included:
Strengthened airframe to cope with increased engine torque and weight
Revised cowling and cooling system to accommodate liquid-cooled or more powerful radial designs
Optimized propeller selection, including variable-pitch options, to improve takeoff and climb performance
Potential increase in bomb or fuel capacity due to improved engine output, aiming for longer range or heavier payload
The goal of these modifications was to make the Scimitar competitive with other contemporary monoplane fighters while retaining its sleek, low-wing monoplane design and retractable landing gear.
Armament
The proposed engine upgrade did not inherently alter the aircraft’s intended armament, which remained:
Four 7.9 mm machine guns in the wings
Provision for light bomb load under the wings if exported for strike roles
Some conceptual sketches considered fitting heavier forward-firing weapons, but these were speculative and never tested.
Operational Context
Although the engine upgrade promised improved performance, no prototype was ever converted or built. By the time these proposals were circulating in 1936–1937, the pace of fighter development had already overtaken the Scimitar. The Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire were entering production with superior speeds, climb rates, and armament. Consequently, the alternative-engine A.W.35 variant remained a paper project, with no operational impact or export sales.
Legacy
The proposed alternative engine variant illustrates Armstrong Whitworth’s recognition of the Scimitar’s shortcomings and the challenges faced by smaller manufacturers competing against rapidly evolving fighter designs. While the variant could have offered improved speed and maneuverability, it came too late to influence either the Norwegian order or potential British adoption. The project remains a footnote in aviation history, reflecting the transitional period between interwar biplane designs and fully modern monoplane fighters.
0eae9f2f-ab8d-4880-9613-37a7904eda33
41,427
